Tom, first of all, let me call you brother. My name is Tom as well, and in the ancient Hebrew, the word means "Twin". As a Tom, I feel a kinship with all Toms and want to show you appropriate respect and deference consequentially.

I haven't been on these forums long, but your presence is hard to avoid. You speak passionately in favor of FET, and seem to at least want to engage on a logical level, even if I can't always follow your logic. I'm willing to accept that this is a shortcoming on my part and not yours.

That being said, I notice that you tend to engage your support of FET on a very mathematical level. I respect that, I'm not great at math overall, and I can only acknowledge those who are in the highest regard for doing what I cannot.

I want to see if you're willing to engage on a different, non-math based level.

I have many bones to pick with FET, ranging from the confusing nature of the conspiracy it would take to perpetuate it, to the failure to address why GPS works the way it does without breaking the short-distance success it has for me when I'm trying to get where I want to go.

Before we get into any of that, I'm asking you, Tom Bishop, my brother in name and respected individual with intelligence and conviction, are you willing to engage with me in a slow, calm conversation?

(I would ask others who might wish to jump in on either side to refrain from posting as well. I want this to be as pure as possible between two Toms.)

Do you think there's any way for FET to exist without a major conspiracy to explain why it isn't universally accepted?

We generally believe that NASA is merely mistaken about the shape of the earth. There is no conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth. A Flat Earth is not being hidden. While they engage in a conspiracy to fake the concept of space travel for unrelated reasons, when it came to depicting the earth they chose to display it as a globe because that is what the general public already believed at the time, based on the handed down teachings of the Ancient Greeks.

Do you think there's any way for FET to exist without a major conspiracy to explain why it isn't universally accepted?

We generally believe that NASA is merely mistaken about the shape of the earth. There is no conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth. A Flat Earth is not being hidden. While they engage in a conspiracy to fake the concept of space travel for unrelated reasons, when it came to depicting the earth they chose to display it as a globe because that is that the general public already believed at the time, based on the handed down teachings of the Ancient Greeks.

We generally believe that NASA is merely mistaken about the shape of the earth. There is no conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth. A Flat Earth is not being hidden. While they engage in a conspiracy to fake the concept of space travel for unrelated reasons, when it came to depicting the earth they chose to display it as a globe because that is that the general public already believed at the time, based on the handed down teachings of the Ancient Greeks.

What do you think about people who claim to have sailed or flown around the world? The only explanation I've seen elsewhere is that such people have actually sailed or flown around the outer parts of the rim, but that fais to explain how they A.) Hit the landmasses they expect to hit instead of the ones they'd hit doing so and B.) Accidentally turn the entire trip without knowing it.

What do you think about people who claim to have sailed or flown around the world? The only explanation I've seen elsewhere is that such people have actually sailed or flown around the outer parts of the rim, but that fais to explain how they A.) Hit the landmasses they expect to hit instead of the ones they'd hit doing so and B.) Accidentally turn the entire trip without knowing it.

For simplicity sake, think of the classic mono-pole Flat Earth model that looks like the United Nations logo. The North Pole is in the center. The magnetic field lines are traveling horizontally from North to South (from the center towards the rim). When you take out your compass the needle will align with the magnetic field lines. East is always at a right angle to North on a compass, so traveling eastwards will take you in a large circle around the North Pole. Although East seems to be a straight direction on a compass, when you actually attempt travel Eastwards your path is curved. This is how circumnavigation is achieved.

Eastwards is also curved in the Round Earth model. Consider that you are on top of a Round Earth model, 30 feet from the point of North Pole and you are instructed to travel Eastwards. Ignoring the orientation of the magnetic field lines there, if you were to attempt to travel Eastwards, where will your path take you?

What do you think about people who claim to have sailed or flown around the world? The only explanation I've seen elsewhere is that such people have actually sailed or flown around the outer parts of the rim, but that fais to explain how they A.) Hit the landmasses they expect to hit instead of the ones they'd hit doing so and B.) Accidentally turn the entire trip without knowing it.

For simplicity sake, think of the classic mono-pole Flat Earth model that looks like the United Nations logo. The magnetic field lines are traveling horizontally from North to South (from the center to the rim). When you take out your compass the needle will align with the magnetic field lines. East is always at a right angle to North on a compass, so traveling eastwards will take you in a large circle around the North Pole. Although East seems to be a straight direction on a compass, when you actually attempt travel Eastwards your path is curved.

Eastwards is also curved in the Round Earth model. Consider that you are on top of a Round Earth model, 30 feet from the point of North Pole and you are instructed to travel Eastwards. Ignoring that the magnetic field lines are vertical there, if you were to attempt to travel Eastwards, where will your path take you?

However distances do not match reality.

If I am travelling east, it is not literally, it means somewhere that directionish and ideally I will take a great circle route as the shortest distance.

What do you think about people who claim to have sailed or flown around the world? The only explanation I've seen elsewhere is that such people have actually sailed or flown around the outer parts of the rim, but that fais to explain how they A.) Hit the landmasses they expect to hit instead of the ones they'd hit doing so and B.) Accidentally turn the entire trip without knowing it.

For simplicity sake, think of the classic mono-pole Flat Earth model that looks like the United Nations logo. The magnetic field lines are traveling horizontally from North to South (from the center to the rim). When you take out your compass the needle will align with the magnetic field lines. East is always at a right angle to North on a compass, so traveling eastwards will take you in a large circle around the North Pole. Although East seems to be a straight direction on a compass, when you actually attempt travel Eastwards your path is curved.

Eastwards is also curved in the Round Earth model. Consider that you are on top of a Round Earth model, 30 feet from the point of North Pole and you are instructed to travel Eastwards. Ignoring that the magnetic field lines are vertical there, if you were to attempt to travel Eastwards, where will your path take you?

What do you think about people who claim to have sailed or flown around the world? The only explanation I've seen elsewhere is that such people have actually sailed or flown around the outer parts of the rim, but that fais to explain how they A.) Hit the landmasses they expect to hit instead of the ones they'd hit doing so and B.) Accidentally turn the entire trip without knowing it.

For simplicity sake, think of the classic mono-pole Flat Earth model that looks like the United Nations logo. The magnetic field lines are traveling horizontally from North to South (from the center to the rim). When you take out your compass the needle will align with the magnetic field lines. East is always at a right angle to North on a compass, so traveling eastwards will take you in a large circle around the North Pole. Although East seems to be a straight direction on a compass, when you actually attempt travel Eastwards your path is curved.

Eastwards is also curved in the Round Earth model. Consider that you are on top of a Round Earth model, 30 feet from the point of North Pole and you are instructed to travel Eastwards. Ignoring that the magnetic field lines are vertical there, if you were to attempt to travel Eastwards, where will your path take you?

For simplicity sake, think of the classic mono-pole Flat Earth model that looks like the United Nations logo. The North Pole is in the center. The magnetic field lines are traveling horizontally from North to South (from the center towards the rim). When you take out your compass the needle will align with the magnetic field lines. East is always at a right angle to North on a compass, so traveling eastwards will take you in a large circle around the North Pole. Although East seems to be a straight direction on a compass, when you actually attempt travel Eastwards your path is curved. This is how circumnavigation is achieved.

That doesn't hold up. For one thing, consider that many ships traveled prior to use of compass navigation. While none of these could successfully circumnavigate, they did know what it was like to sail a ship. Their rudder and wheel positions would be, let's say, 12 O'clock to go straight, and they would just sail straight as they saw straight to be. Then, they got compasses, and at no point did they make any note of having to slightly curve their wheels or rudders to keep course with what their magnets said.

That is just massively important, because by your logic, when compasses were first introduced, the sailors would have to note that in order to go "straight" it was important to actually angle their rudders to new angles, or re-angle more frequently, to keep to the course they were sailing. And you can't really claim it would have all been kept quiet, because compasses were introduced gradually over the course of many sailors' lives, some as late as literally modern times.

Another important problem is GPS. GPS consistently contradicts what FET says, and while I don't know what the overarching explanation for why that is (barring the conspiracy you've already agreed to dismiss,) in this case just focusing on how GPS can give a directly straight line between two points of any length and have it be accurate. I know from very long-range hiking I've done that if it draws a line between point A and point B, at no point do I have to curve my trajectory to stay on that line. What's more, I've tested it against a compass, and my Compass doesn't deviate from that straight line either.

How does your equation explain these discrepancies?[/quote]

Quote

Eastwards is also curved in the Round Earth model. Consider that you are on top of a Round Earth model, 30 feet from the point of North Pole and you are instructed to travel Eastwards. Ignoring the orientation of the magnetic field lines there, if you were to attempt to travel Eastwards, where will your path take you?

Sure, I have no problem with that. But it doesn't have anything to do with the much bigger holes I've pointed out already.

Tom? I don't think we're at an agree-to-disagree point yet. I've raised two important questions to challenge your explanation for circumnavigation. You can either admit they're pretty big holes, or explain why they aren't actually relevant. I'm open-minded enough to go forward either way.

That doesn't hold up. For one thing, consider that many ships traveled prior to use of compass navigation. While none of these could successfully circumnavigate, they did know what it was like to sail a ship. Their rudder and wheel positions would be, let's say, 12 O'clock to go straight, and they would just sail straight as they saw straight to be. Then, they got compasses, and at no point did they make any note of having to slightly curve their wheels or rudders to keep course with what their magnets said.

That is just massively important, because by your logic, when compasses were first introduced, the sailors would have to note that in order to go "straight" it was important to actually angle their rudders to new angles, or re-angle more frequently, to keep to the course they were sailing. And you can't really claim it would have all been kept quiet, because compasses were introduced gradually over the course of many sailors' lives, some as late as literally modern times.

Before compasses celestial navigation was used. The North Star is to the North, and East and West are in relation to the North Star.

Quote

Another important problem is GPS. GPS consistently contradicts what FET says, and while I don't know what the overarching explanation for why that is (barring the conspiracy you've already agreed to dismiss,) in this case just focusing on how GPS can give a directly straight line between two points of any length and have it be accurate. I know from very long-range hiking I've done that if it draws a line between point A and point B, at no point do I have to curve my trajectory to stay on that line. What's more, I've tested it against a compass, and my Compass doesn't deviate from that straight line either.

How does your equation explain these discrepancies?

GPS has not been shown to be accurate. There is good reason to believe that the distances it provides is not accurate. We are talking about this in the airline thread.

That doesn't hold up. For one thing, consider that many ships traveled prior to use of compass navigation. While none of these could successfully circumnavigate, they did know what it was like to sail a ship. Their rudder and wheel positions would be, let's say, 12 O'clock to go straight, and they would just sail straight as they saw straight to be. Then, they got compasses, and at no point did they make any note of having to slightly curve their wheels or rudders to keep course with what their magnets said.

That is just massively important, because by your logic, when compasses were first introduced, the sailors would have to note that in order to go "straight" it was important to actually angle their rudders to new angles, or re-angle more frequently, to keep to the course they were sailing. And you can't really claim it would have all been kept quiet, because compasses were introduced gradually over the course of many sailors' lives, some as late as literally modern times.

Before compasses celestial navigation was used. The North Star is to the North, and East and West are in relation to the North Star.

Quote

Another important problem is GPS. GPS consistently contradicts what FET says, and while I don't know what the overarching explanation for why that is (barring the conspiracy you've already agreed to dismiss,) in this case just focusing on how GPS can give a directly straight line between two points of any length and have it be accurate. I know from very long-range hiking I've done that if it draws a line between point A and point B, at no point do I have to curve my trajectory to stay on that line. What's more, I've tested it against a compass, and my Compass doesn't deviate from that straight line either.

How does your equation explain these discrepancies?

GPS has not been shown to be accurate. There is good reason to believe that the distances it provides is not accurate. We are talking about this in the airline thread.

It has been explained that the position information given by GPS is accurate to within a few metres. Do you agree that the WGS-84 model of the earth is correct??

Before compasses celestial navigation was used. The North Star is to the North, and East and West are in relation to the North Star.

Absolutely, and that exactly makes my point. During pre-compass voyages, you'd use the stars and presumably have to re-adjust your course each night since you can't see the stars you're trying to follow in the day time (other than sailing straight towards them and assuming its still straight of course, not constantly curving around.)

Then along come compasses, and sailors who are used to navigating by the stars suddenly see that to make a truly straight aim towards north, they actually need to constantly veer their ship slightly curved, because according to you, that's what they would need to do in order to circumnavigate, constantly curve around the world without realizing that they're doing it.

So while you've identified the pre-compass method of navigation accurately, you have done nothing to explain the transition between the two not revealing a huge change in people's perspective on the matter.

Quote

GPS has not been shown to be accurate. There is good reason to believe that the distances it provides is not accurate. We are talking about this in the irline thread.

Now THAT is a bold claim, sir!

I think I saw the airplane thread you're talking about, and while you might find the math of interlocking triangles somehow very compelling, they don't mean anything to me. Let me tell you why:

Anecdotal evidence, pure and simple. You can disregard it since I know anecdotes aren't science, but I am somebody who has a lousy sense of direction overall. When GPS came along, it changed my life, allowing me to navigate easily and accurately anywhere I was going, from cross-country drives to every short trip. I can verify for myself without any discrepancy trip after accurate trip after accurate trip. Now to be fair, I haven't pushed this to circumnavigation, but at least right now I have very little reason to believe that the program which can guide me unerringly for 6000 miles on my phone is somehow going to completely break down and fritz out if I try to go another twelve thousand.

How do you explain that my GPS is accurate to a 6000-mile journey, yet would somehow stop being accurate if I went just a bit further?

To be clear, the inaccuracy being called out in the GPS, is measuring traveled distance. There is a margin of error with your location in consumer grade devices, that adds up to a longer distance traveled over time. For example a walk measuring 13.1 miles, when distance tracked with the GPS, was giving distances as high as 14.1(2?) Miles for distance walked.